Now THAT is off-topic. We are discussing the use of SA at SMTP time.
Please stay on-topic for this group, and for this thread.
If you actually care to continue, I expect a reasonable
response to my arguments about rejection being better than
bouncing or silent diversion.
Geez, you
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, R-Elists wrote:
Charles Gregory Quote:Re: [sa] Re: SMTP REJECT after DATA
The only efficiency to be gained is to reject as much as possible after the
RCPT_TO, before accepting DATA. But for systems like mine, with lousy user
cooperation, rejecting some of the mail after DATA
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Second: you are completely misguided in your wish to reject mail after
SMTP data stage.
You may certainly argue for YOUR preference (and I emphasise *preference*)
for the most 'efficient' way to run an SMTP server, but there is nothing
sufficiently
Charles, just a quick answer as we are really OT.
It all simply boils down to (quoting me):
avoid unnecessary processing and avoid unncessary traffic.
and I might add now: with the least disadvantages on both sides.
Assess that and you find it doesn't make sense to spam-scan messages and
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 08:03, Kai Schaetzl mailli...@conactive.com wrote:
Charles, just a quick answer as we are really OT.
It all simply boils down to (quoting me):
avoid unnecessary processing and avoid unncessary traffic.
and I might add now: with the least disadvantages on both sides.
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
and you find it doesn't make sense to spam-scan messages and
reject them in/after DATA stage in a real world scenario.
You ignore my arguments. Hardly surprising.
You reword yours, but say nothing new.
It makes only sense if you are die-hard
